U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–102 PDF 2014

OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Serial No. 113–103 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Mexico, opening statement .................................................................................. 5 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 6 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 6 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 8 

Hon. Gregg Harper, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi, prepared statement ............................................................................... 75 

WITNESSES

Samuel Ginn, Chairman, First Responder Network Authority Board ................ 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 77 

David S. Turetsky, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission ............................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 91 

Darryl Ackley, Secretary, New Mexico Department of Information Technology 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 94 

Stu Davis, Assistant Director, Ohio Department of Administrative Services .... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 98 

Dereck Orr, Program Manager, Public Safety Communications Research Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology .................................... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 102 

Dennis Martinez, Chief Technology Officer, RF Communications Division, 

Harris Corporation ............................................................................................... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 110 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY WIRELESS 

COMMUNICATIONS 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Blackburn, Lance, Gardner, Long, Eshoo, Matsui, Lujan, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Grace Koh, 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; David Redl, Counsel, 

Communications and Technology; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative 

Coordinator; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Gene Fullano, 

FCC Detailee; Shawn Chang, Democratic Chief Counsel for Communications and Technology; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Kara van Stralen, Democratic Policy Analyst; and Patrick Donovan, Democratic FCC Detailee. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to call to order the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology. I want to thank our witnesses for 

being here today. Just at the outset, I would tell you that they expect votes on the House floor at about 10:50, or thereabouts, so I 

think we will get through our opening statements. I doubt we get 

to your presentations initially, but then we are going to come back 

right after those votes and proceed. And so I will start. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Last March, the subcommittee met to conduct our first oversight 

hearing of the newly formed First Responder Network Authority, 

or FirstNet. FirstNet’s charge of building a nationwide, interoperable, public safety broadband network from Washington, DC, under 

the statute was crafted by our friends in the Senate. 

As I noted then, the structure of FirstNet was not my preferred 

approach to solving our Nation’s public safety communications 

challenges. I favored construction from the bottom up, not the top 

down, with certain minimum interoperability requirements set by 

2 

the Federal government, and commercial providers running the 

network, in partnership with the States. I cautioned then that this 

approach is not guaranteed by the legislation as passed, but that 

FirstNet could choose to adopt such approach. 

While there is significant work to be done to ensure the States 

are partners, not customers, of FirstNet, it appears that FirstNet 

has made progress in reaching out to State, tribal, and local jurisdictions along these lines. This is a significant undertaking, rivaling the network deployments of our largest national wireless carriers. Today’s hearing reflects the subcommittee’s commitment to 

continued and thorough oversight of this important effort, and a 

dedication to ensure that our Nation’s public safety users realize 

the benefits, and know the costs, of the State of the art communications tools that the law envisions. 

Now, when we met last March, the FirstNet board had only recently been assembled. Perhaps because of its infancy, there was 

considerable uncertainty among critical stakeholders with regard to 

how FirstNet was being administered, and how the public safety 

broadband network would be realized. Unfortunately, rather than 

seeing those concerns wane as FirstNet has gained its footing, 

FirstNet finds itself embroiled in allegations from within that it 

lacks transparency, and suffers from potential ethical conflicts. As 

a result, FirstNet is currently under investigation by the Inspector 

General of the Department of Commerce. Suffice it to say, this is 

not necessarily a confidence inspiring development. But, for all the 

efforts by FirstNet, much work remains to gain the support of the 

States and the tribes, the commercial wireless community, and, 

most importantly, the first responders, who will rely upon FirstNet 

in life or death situations. 

Ultimately FirstNet needs the confidence and cooperation of all 

these groups to realize the standards, economies of scale, and potential that FirstNet holds. In order to do so, FirstNet must be an 

informative and cooperative national coordinator of the myriad 

moving parts that comprise the public safety community, and do so 

in short order. Unfortunately, this is precisely where FirstNet 

seems to be struggling. 

This challenge is best exemplified by the fact that no one seems 

to be able to answer the simple question what is FirstNet? Is 

FirstNet going to partner with our national wireless providers, or 

will it be just another commercial provider in government clothing? 

Has FirstNet modeled a cost for these options? Are States expected 

to give FirstNet their existing assets as an up-front payment for 

participation? What is FirstNet going to charge local first responders for use of the network? 

Now, these are all questions that we in Congress have been 

asked as FirstNet struggles to find its way. And while a few jurisdictions have managed to negotiate lease agreements with 

FirstNet, the fundamental issues regarding cost, coverage, and timing remain unexplained, as do the processes contemplated for the 

exercise of a State’s option to participate in the network. Now, left 

unresolved, the promise that we made to first responders to overcome once and for all the lack of interoperable communications is 

undermined, and the prospect of FirstNet’s success diminished. We 

cannot afford to have this effort fail to produce a network, or worse, 

3 

have the network deployed, and then have no one show up to use 

it. 

Today we are asking our witnesses what is working, what is not 

working, and how can we help? We will hear from the chairman 

of the FirstNet Board, who can provide an update on progress in 

the deployment of the Public Safety Broadband Network, address 

these fundamental issues, and hopefully allay our concerns about 

the openness and transparency of FirstNet’s processes. We will also 

hear from States, the chief of the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, NIST, whose good work with NTIA on the 

Public Safety Communications research program is helping answer 

some fundamental technology questions for FirstNet, and a private 

sector representative who can provide their perspectives on 

FirstNet’s progress, insights into their respective roles, and share 

ideas about what FirstNet can do better to get the job done. 

And because FirstNet will not initially provide mission critical 

voice capability, and public safety will continue to rely on traditional land mobile radio systems for voice communications, we will 

take the opportunity to better understand how the development of 

the new emergency communications technologies will be used together with traditional public safety communications until FirstNet 

is capable of addressing public safety’s mission critical voice needs. 

So I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today to 

address these issues we have raised, and hope to leave with a higher level of comfort with regard to FirstNet’s progress and confidence in the manner in which it is conducting its business. That 

is the purpose of this hearing. I thank the witnesses for being here, 

and now I would yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Last March the subcommittee met to conduct our first oversight hearing of the 

newly formed First Responder Network Authority, or FirstNet. FirstNet’s charge of 

building a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network from Washington, DC, under the statute was crafted by our friends in the Senate. As I noted 

then, the structure of FirstNet was not my preferred approach to solving our Nation’s public safety communications challenges. I favored construction from the bottom up, not the top down, with certain minimum interoperability requirements set 

by the Federal Government and commercial providers running the network in partnership with the States. I cautioned then that this approach is not guaranteed by 

the legislation as passed, but that FirstNet could choose to adopt such an approach. 

While there is significant work to be done to ensure that the States are partners, 

not customers, of FirstNet, it appears that FirstNet has made progress in reaching 

out to State, tribal, and local jurisdictions along these lines. 

This is a significant undertaking, rivaling the network deployments of our largest 

national wireless carriers. Today’s hearing reflects the subcommittee’s commitment 

to continued and thorough oversight of this effort and a dedication to ensure that 

our Nation’s public safety users realize the benefits and know the costs of the stateof-the-art communications tools the law envisions. 

When we met last March, the FirstNet board had only recently been assembled. 

Perhaps because of its infancy, there was considerable uncertainty among critical 

stakeholders with regard to how FirstNet was being administered and how the public safety broadband network would be realized. Unfortunately, rather than seeing 

those concerns wane as FirstNet has gained its footing, FirstNet finds itself embroiled in allegations from within that it lacks transparency and suffers from potential ethical conflicts. As a result, FirstNet is currently under investigation by the 

Inspector General of the Department of Commerce. Suffice it to say, this is not a 

confidence inspiring development. 

4 

But for all the efforts by FirstNet, much work remains to gain the support of the 

States and the tribes, the commercial wireless community, and most importantly 

the first responders who will rely on FirstNet in life or death situations. Ultimately 

FirstNet needs the confidence and cooperation of all of these groups to realize the 

standards, economies of scale, and potential that FirstNet holds. In order to do so, 

FirstNet must be an informative and cooperative national coordinator of the myriad 

moving parts that comprise the public safety community, and do so in short order. 

Unfortunately, this is precisely where FirstNet seems tobe struggling. 

This challenge is best exemplified by the fact that no one seems to be able to answer the simple question: ‘‘What is FirstNet?’’ Is FirstNet going to partner with our 

national wireless providers or will it be just another commercial provider in government clothing? Has FirstNet modeled the costs for these options? Are States expected to give FirstNet their existing assets as an up front payment for participation? What is FirstNet going to charge local first responders for use of the network? 

These are all questions that we in Congress have been asked as FirstNet struggles 

to find its way. And while a few jurisdictions have managed to negotiate lease 

agreements with FirstNet, the fundamental issues regarding cost, coverage and timing remain unexplained, as do the processes contemplated for the exercise of a 

State’s options to participate in the network. Left unresolved, the promise that we 

made to first responders to overcome once and for all the lack of interoperable communications is undermined, and the prospect of FirstNet’s success diminished. We 

cannot afford to have this effort fail to produce a network, or worse, have this network deployed and then have no one show up to use it. 

Today, we are asking our witnesses ‘‘what is working, what isn’t working, and 

how can we help?’’ We will hear from the chairman of the FirstNet Board, who can 

provide an update on progress in the deployment of the public safety broadband network, address these fundamental issues, and hopefully allay our concerns about the 

openness and transparency of FirstNet’s processes. We will also hear from States, 

the chief of the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, NIST—whose 

good work with NTIA on the Public Safety Communications Research program is 

helping answer some fundamental technology questions for FirstNet, and a private 

sector representative who can provide their perspectives on FirstNet’s progress, insights into their respective roles, and share ideas about what FirstNet can do better 

to get the job done. And because FirstNet will not initially provide mission critical 

voice capability and public safety will continue to rely on traditional land mobile 

radio systems for voice communications,we will take this opportunity to better understand how the development of new emergencycommunications technologies will 

be used together with traditional public safety communications until FirstNet is capable of addressing public safety’s mission-critical voice needs. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hope to leave with 

a higher level of comfort with regard to FirstNet’s progress and confidence in the 

manner in which it is conducting its business. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here in 

place of Ranking Member Eshoo, who will be arriving shortly. But 

I really want to thank everyone for being here today. I think it is 

an important issue, and I am glad that we are looking at the 

progress that we have made here. 

FirstNet is a startup, let us not forget that, and like every startup, it has had its growing pains. But since our last hearing, we 

have seen some progress from FirstNet. FirstNet has hit some 

milestones, has established a budget, and hired staff. Moving forward we need to work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure 

its success. If we fail, then we jeopardize the entire system and put 

America’s first responders at risk. It is as simple as that. 

Throughout the debate on the spectrum law, I remained focused 

on the need to responsibly govern any nationwide public safety 

interoperability network. I believe governance is paramount. It is 

critical to ensure America’s first responders have an efficient and 

5 

effective interoperability network. It is also important to ensure we 

spend taxpayer money wisely. Despite some initial concerns about 

the role of States taking a back seat, I am pleased that the 

FirstNet board took this issue head on, and developed a strong, coordinated relationship with the States. 

The FirstNet board has significant responsibility. I believe the 

experienced individuals on the board are capable and qualified to 

ensure our primary goal of achieving a nationwide level of interoperability for our Nation’s first responders, while ensuring fiscal 

responsibility. It is my hope that we can work together in a bipartisan manner to achieve success for America’s first responders. 

And I yield time to Mr. Lujan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you very much to our Ranking Member Matsui. And, Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing that we are 

having today. Quite an exciting time, as we talk about the ability 

to change the way that we can take advantage of modern technology to ensure that first responders have the tools that they 

need. 

I was sharing with my legislative director, Andrew Jones, a few 

minutes ago that, while I sat on the New Mexico Public Regulatory 

Commission, which is the equivalent of Public Utility Commissions 

across the country, we were very unique in that we had the State 

fire marshal under our jurisdiction attached to a Department of Insurance, again, a very unique relationship that was created. 

But in those conversations, getting to speak specifically to firefighters, with the tragic loss that we have recently had as well with 

the firefighters in Arizona, who put out many fires in New Mexico, 

and also those that were from New Mexico, this technology that 

could be on the body, so that there are eyes and ears around them, 

monitoring vital signs with them, whether they are firefighters, police officers, or any of our emergency responders, for that matter, 

is something that I hope that we can get correct here so that we 

can keep more people alive, keep them safer, and truly improve our 

abilities to make sure that communities are safer, for that matter, 

so I am really excited about this. 

I think it is intriguing to note that many of the States as well 

have benefitted from investments in these programs with interoperable systems as a result of the Recovery Act. I know that there 

is a difference of opinion sometimes with benefits, but I hope that 

this is one that we can agree on, that this investment was critically 

important, and that, as we have seen roll out in many States, we 

can point back to the importance of investment in infrastructure. 

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank 

the chairman, the ranking member very much again for this important hearing. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time, and 

I appreciate the comments. 

We will now turn to the vice chair of the full committee, 

gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of 

our witnesses being here, and the opportunity to have the hearing, 

and to do some oversight on FirstNet, and look at how it is standing up, and, due to the passage of the Spectrum Act, we all view 

public safety as an important Federal Government priority, but we 

need to do it efficiently, and effectively, and with a little bit of 

thought toward the price tag, since it is all taxpayer money. 

As we have seen with the botched rollout of the Obamacare site, 

government entities don’t have all the answers when it comes to 

new technologies, and rolling out a nationwide interoperable public 

safety network is going to require significant consultation and help 

from the private sector. The decisions that are made today will determine the success or failure of FirstNet in its framework. That 

is why we need benchmarks, status updates, strong leadership that 

is focused, and States need to be given resources to manage their 

operations, if they have found a better way. 

So I thank you all for being here, and at this time I will yield 

to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, the balance of the time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing today. And I 

appreciate our distinguished witnesses for appearing to testify 

today. 

A robust public safety communications network is critical to protecting the lives and safety of the American people. We have an obligation to ensure that the implementation of FirstNet is successful 

and facilitates the communication needs of first responders that 

bravely risk their lives for ours. While I am encouraged by some 

of the initial progress that FirstNet has made in the development 

of the nationwide network, I have concerns that FirstNet is not sufficiently engaging with States throughout the process. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today, 

as well as the plans to ensure that FirstNet is closely consulting 

with States, and that States have a clearly defined role in understanding the responsibility and the terms of the planning, development, funding, and implementation of the broadband network. 

I thank the chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Anyone else on the Republican side? Mr. Long, do 

you have any opening statement? OK. Gentleman yields back the 

balance of his time. Chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus 

of the committee, the ranking Democrat, Mr. Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congress 

came together to enact the Public Safety Inspector Act last year, 

delivering on one of the last remaining recommendations from the 

9/11 Commission, to create a nationwide interoperable public safety 

7 

broadband network for first responders. To implement this long 

overdue mission, Congress created the First Responder Network 

Authority, or FirstNet. Today, we are conducting our second 

FirstNet oversight hearing in less than 8 months, demonstrating 

the committee’s strong bipartisan interest in ensuring this important job is done right from the very start. 

And I would like to thank Chairman Ginn of the FirstNet board 

for testifying again, and updating us on FirstNet’s operations and 

activities. I would also like to join my colleagues in thanking Mr. 

Turetsky for his service as chief of the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau, and wishing him the best of luck in his new role 

at the FCC. 

Given the magnitude of this project, it is critical that FirstNet 

and its partners operate efficiently and innovate aggressively. To 

meet this challenge, I believe FirstNet is already moving in the 

right direction by strengthening its operations through a sound 

business plan, a growing, talented staff, and a fiscally prudent 

budget. The Board is now supported by a management team with 

significant experience in the wireless industry, public safety communications, and financial management. FirstNet is putting its expertise to use, listening to the feedback of various stakeholders, 

and engaging in extensive outreach to the public safety and governmental communities, as well as vendors, carriers, and technology 

firms. 

From a technical perspective, FirstNet is laying the foundation 

for the network architecture through multiple requests for information that seek input from industry and other stakeholders. The 

Public Safety and Spectrum Act has also tasked the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, with conducting research, and assisting with the development of critical standards 

and technologies to advance the types of public safety communications to be supported by FirstNet. And I look forward to hearing 

how NIST has been working with FirstNet to address the technical 

challenges of standing up the network. 

One of the many challenges FirstNet has grappled with since our 

last hearing is how to address the jurisdictions that received funding for public safety networks through the Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program, or BTOP. I am especially pleased that 

FirstNet reached an agreement with the Los Angeles Regional 

Interoperable Communications System Authority on its BTOP 

grant. I know reaching such a complex agreement was not easy, 

and I appreciate the tenacious good faith efforts exhibited by all 

parties to the agreement. 

The LARICS project will not only benefit first respondents of the 

L.A. region, it will also provide FirstNet with an opportunity to 

gather information and share lessons learned with other projects. 

The State of New Mexico is also moving forward with its BTOP 

grant, and I want to thank Dr. Darryl Ackley, Chief Information 

Officer of the State of New Mexico, for testifying today to discuss 

his State’s agreement with FirstNet. 

And, finally, I appreciate that FirstNet has acted promptly to address certain procurement and ethics related matters. I look forward to reviewing the findings of the Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General when they have completed their audit. In 

8 

conducting oversight of this fledgling organization, we all share a 

common interest to protect public investments and guard against 

waste, fraud, and abuse that may threaten the viability of the network. I hope it will continue to work in a bipartisan way to ensure 

FirstNet’s success. I thank all the witnesses for testifying. I look 

forward to your testimony, and I want to apologize in advance that 

I have a conflict, so I won’t be able to be here throughout the hearing, but I will have a chance to review the testimony, and my staff, 

of course, will remain here, listen to everything that is said, and 

work with you on all of these issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you want to yield your remaining 30 seconds to 

Ms. Eshoo? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was I supposed to do that? 

Mr. WALDEN. Not necessarily, but—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the balance of my time, and maybe even 

some extra, to Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Waxman, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say to the witnesses, I apologize for being tardy 

this morning, and I want to thank Congresswoman Matsui for sitting in, and I look forward to your testimony. I want to salute you, 

Mr. Ginn, for the work that you are doing. I am just so impressed 

with what has taken place in a short period of time on a myriad 

of issues. So I thank you, and I am forgoing the fabulous opening 

statement that I had for everyone, but we will place that in the 

record. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

Last Congress, this subcommittee achieved a major milestone when it laid the 

groundwork for the first-ever nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. There were many who thought we would never achieve the last remaining 

recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and there are some who still have their 

doubts. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to hear from FirstNet as well other stakeholders who are directly involved in the implementation of FirstNet and make sure 

we remain on track. 

In the eight months since our subcommittee’s last oversight hearing, significant 

progress has been made. A General Manager has been named; a 2014 budget has 

been approved; eleven technical RFIs have been issued with over 300 responses; the 

FCC has approved technical and operational rules; 54 of 56 State and local implementation grants have been awarded; and FirstNet is well on its way to achieving 

the goals established in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 

But there’s no doubt that much more work lies ahead. The next 12 months represent a critical phase for FirstNet. To keep this project on schedule and on budget, 

FirstNet must continue to leverage the resources of the commercial wireless sector 

and ensure that it conducts a procurement process that is transparent, that it’s 

based on non-proprietary standards, and promotes competition among software and 

device manufacturers. I have confidence that under the leadership of Sam Ginn, 

FirstNet will fulfill its mission to provide our first responders with a state-of-theart network that is reliable, hardened, redundant and secure. 

And finally, while I’m disappointed that the Bay Area’s public safety project was 

unable to reach agreement by last week’s deadline, I support FirstNet’s decision to 

protect taxpayer dollars and prevent the use of proprietary technology that could ultimately be incompatible with the nationwide network. We should learn from both 

the successes and failures of this project and the 6 other BTOP public safety 

projects and ensure these lessons are applied to FirstNet. 

9 

I thank each witness for your commitment to pioneering the next generation of 

public safety communications and I look forward to hearing your important testimony today. 

Mr. WALDEN. I was going to have it framed too, and put on the 

wall alongside mine. 

I want to welcome our witnesses, and thank especially David 

Turetsky, who is the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Thanks for your 

service. I understand today is your last day in that role, but we appreciate your being here. We will try not to make it your worst day 

in that role. And so we want to thank you for all your dedicated 

years of service. 

And I know Mr. Latta was going to introduce our witness from 

Ohio. If you want to just say some opening remarks about him, and 

then we will get started? 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome Stu Davis, who is the Chief Information Officer for the State 

of Ohio. You know, Stu has been instrumental in leading Ohio’s efforts statewide in public safety emergency management communication system. He has been a leader in the IT industry, and it 

is an honor to have him here representing the great State of Ohio. 

So welcome, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. WALDEN. We welcome all of our witnesses, and we will start 

now with the man in charge, who is undertaken this incredibly 

challenging task, and put a lot of effort into it, no doubt, Mr. Sam 

Ginn, who is the Chairman of the First Responder Network Authority. Sam, thank you for being here. Thanks for your interaction 

with the subcommittee, and your service for the country, and we 

look forward to your statement, sir. 

STATEMENTS OF SAMUEL GINN, CHAIRMAN, FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY BOARD; DAVID S. 

TURETSKY, CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; 

DARRYL ACKLEY, SECRETARY, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT 

OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; STU DAVIS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES; DERECK ORR, PROGRAM MANAGER, PUBLIC SAFETY 

COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY; AND DENNIS MARTINEZ, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, RF COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION, HARRIS CORPORATION 

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GINN 

Mr. GINN. Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity. And, Congresswoman Eshoo, it is nice to be 

here, and I hope that this session will be productive, and we will 

be able to answer your questions. 

I would just like to start out by making a couple of observations. 

We can get into all the technical issues around outreach and contracts and other things, but I want you to understand that we 

know who holds the responsibility for building this network. We do. 

And I think one of the critical issues about this bill is Congress recognized you want to put the responsibility on an entity, and that 

10 

is us. We hold that responsibility, and we hold it with an attitude 

that we can get this network built. So I think we have to start 

there. 

I think the other thing that we have to recognize is this is a 

large, complex project, enormous scale, enormous technical issues. 

Critical issues surround outreach to the customers, and I must tell 

you that we understand if we don’t build this system to meet the 

needs of public safety, it will not be successful. I think principle 

one is we know we have to do that, and in the testimony we talk 

about all kind of outreach, and things that we are doing to understand the requirements of public safety, and that information is 

being filtered in to the technical organization as we design the system. 

So we will have time to get into those issues, but I don’t want 

us to miss a larger point, and this is it. When we build this network, and we will build this network, it is going to revolutionize 

public safety in ways that we don’t even understand. It is like most 

revolutions. When they start out, you know things are going to be 

different. But when this network is in place, we are going to revolutionize public safety. 

Let me give you an analogy, and a simple one. I want you to 

think back, when you got your first cell phone, and how you used 

it. And now I want you to think back, given the applications that 

are available for you to download, how has it affected your day to 

day life? And I would say significantly. And the point I want to 

make to you is, when this network goes in place, we will see the 

innovation and creativity of public safety all across the country, 

where they step up and solve local issues, local situations, that basically lower their costs, or serve the public better, or increase their 

own safety. 

So I don’t want us to lose the larger point in this conversation, 

simply to say that we are going to get this done, and when we do, 

I think there will be a tremendous advantage not only to public 

safety, but to citizens of the country, and all of us who are worried 

about the cost of providing service to the country. And my sense 

is that we can take them down dramatically. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ginn follows:] 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Ginn, thank you. They have called votes, and 

so I think what we will do, before proceeding with others, is go 

ahead now and recess the committee. We have got a couple of 

votes, I believe, and then we will be back as soon after the votes 

as our members can get here, and we will resume this hearing. 

So, with that, we will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WALDEN. Call back to order the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, and my apologies that the votes went 

longer than anticipated, but we have returned, and we appreciate 

testimony of Mr. Ginn, and I think we were just going to Mr. 

Turetsky when we had to take a break. 

So, sir, if you will turn on that microphone, pull it close, we will 

resume our hearing. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. TURETSKY 

Mr. TURETSKY. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

Vice-Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the 

FCC’s efforts to support FirstNet through implementation of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and our ongoing mission to enhance public safety and emergency communications. 

Traditional public safety land mobile systems continue to provide 

mission critical voice capability for first responders, and will continue to do so for some time, and must be maintained. But they 

cannot support the data rich applications that are more and more 

necessary for public safety personnel to do their jobs. In part, that 

is why Congress passed the Act, to create a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network for the public safety community. 

As Chairman Wheeler stated earlier this week, communications 

networks are changing, and fast. And where technological change 

and public safety intersect, there are both challenges and opportunities. Congress included some specific tasks for the FCC to support FirstNet’s mission when it passed the Act in February 2012. 

For example, it directed the FCC to establish the technical advisory 

board for first responder interoperability within 30 days. That 

board then had 90 days to develop minimum technical requirements to ensure a nationwide level of interoperability for the 

FirstNet network. The Commission then had 30 days to approve 

and transmit the recommendations to FirstNet. The Commission 

met each of these deadlines. 

Beyond these specific tasks, the Commission has also worked to 

fulfill its statutory obligation to ‘‘take all actions necessary to facilitate the transition’’ of the 700 megahertz public safety broadband 

spectrum to FirstNet. Last month the Commission unanimously 

adopted a report and order that established the basic technical 

rules for the FirstNet spectrum. Those rules will not only help to 

accomplish goals like preventing interference, but, vitally, will give 

vendors guidance they need to compete and innovate, and enable 

the Commission to certify equipment promptly. These rules are 

supported by the record, and are consistent with comments from 

FirstNet, and others. 

We recognize that we still have more to address under the law. 

For example, in some areas, there are incumbent public safety narVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:56 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-103 FIRSTNET ASK 2ND OK 10-23-14\113-103 FIRSTNET PDF MADE WAYNE
25 

row band operations in the FirstNet spectrum which pre-date the 

designation of this spectrum for broadband use. The Act also provides that if a State seeks to exercise its opt-out rights, the Commission must either approve or disapprove the State’s opt-out 

plans, based on specific statutory criteria. We intend to provide 

clear guidance to the States and FirstNet on how that will work 

before States have to choose whether to opt out. 

The Commission is also considering how best to implement the 

T-band provisions of the Act, which require future relocation of 

those public safety systems, and auction of the vacated spectrum. 

The Bureau issued a public notice on this, and received comments 

over the summer. We will work with all stakeholders and our Federal partners to ensure that these transitions occur seamlessly and 

transparently as much as possible. 

Next, the public safety community faces another transition to 

NG–911, which can revolutionize the way the public seeks help. 

This is tightly interwoven with the FirstNet network, as NG–911 

and the FirstNet network can be complementary components of an 

end to end broadband echo system. Public safety call centers will 

serve as hubs for data from 911 callers, such as photos or film 

clips, which can then be disseminated to first responders through 

the FirstNet network. One step the FCC is taking to facilitate the 

transition to NG–911 is to advance Text-to-911. People expect to be 

able to use the means of communications that they use every day 

to get help, and text messaging is part of the fabric of modern life. 

It also is the only practical or safe way to reach out for help in 

some circumstances. Also, wireless calls to 911 increasingly originate indoors. Obtaining an accurate location for those callers can 

be a challenge, and we held a major workshop at the FCC about 

that earlier this week. 

Finally, I want to mention the successful use of wireless emergency alerts to warn the public of emergencies. Just this past 

weekend, mobile users in the path of tornadoes in Illinois received 

warnings from the National Weather Service sent via the Wireless 

Emergency Alert System. Reports are that this helped some people 

get to safety before the tornadoes struck. Since implementation in 

the summer of 2012, WEA, as we call it, warnings have helped to 

recover kidnapped children, evacuate areas during Superstorm 

Sandy, and otherwise alert people to get to safety in an emergency. 

In closing, transition is the watchword, and the Commission intends to achieve it by working with all stakeholders in a transparent and responsible manner. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turetsky follows:] 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, and thanks to the FCC for their good 

work in this area, and meeting the deadlines. 

We will go now to Mr. Darryl Ackley, who is the Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Department of Information and Technology. Mr. Ackley, thank you for being here today, and thanks for 

your patience. We look forward to your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DARRYL ACKLEY 

Mr. ACKLEY. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the subcommittee. Thank you as well for the opportunity to be here today to present on the status of the project 

in New Mexico in public safety broadband. Excited to be here 

today. I am the Chief Information Officer for the State of New 

Mexico, and Cabinet Secretary over the Information Technology 

Department, appointed in February of 2011 by Governor Susanna 

Martinez when she took office. I also serve as the representative 

from the National Association of State Chief Information Officers 

to the FirstNet Public Safety Advisory Committee, but asked to be 

here today to update specifically on the activities within the State 

of New Mexico. 

A little bit of background, the IT Department in New Mexico is 

the enterprise service provider for the State, in traditional domain, 

but we also operate the Public Safety Land Mobile Radio Communication Network for our State’s first responders and officials, to include a fairly large tower asset, and land mobile radio component. 

We operate that in a chargeback manner, and provide hopefully 

great service for our citizens in the State. 

In 2010 New Mexico was one of the applicants and recipients of 

a BTOP grant to build out both additional digital microwave infrastructure within the State, but also to deploy a pilot broadband 

program, LTE, within the 10 megahertz of spectrum that were 

dedicated for public safety under the Public Safety Spectrum Trust. 

In 2011, when I took the office, we incorporated that into a comprehensive plan to modernize public safety communications within 

the State of New Mexico along three areas. One, having a resilient 

and robust backhaul infrastructure. This is towers, et cetera. The 

second, to address critical gaps in our State’s land mobile radio 

communications. But the third, and in line with our BTOP grant, 

to deploy public safety broadband within the State, and we saw 

these three as being very compatible with one another. 

As part of that plan, we began work in earnest on the tower upgrades, which are nearly complete, providing us a digital microwave backbone. At the juncture we were about to deploy in the 

LTE for the public safety broadband, of course, in 2012 was when 

the Spectrum Act was passed, creating FirstNet, and opening the 

D block for use by that entity. Our grant was partially suspended 

in that regard in the LTE while the FirstNet board was brought 

into being, while they organized and got moving. 

In December of 2012, so about a year ago, we were visited by 

board members Jeff Johnson and Sue Swenson to review our BTOP 

program, as they visited all the BTOP waiver recipients. At that 

time we presented our original plan for a build-out in that LTE 

spectrum, but also provided some alternative plans to work with 

the board through, in case they wanted to see some different opVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:56 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-103 FIRSTNET ASK 2ND OK 10-23-14\113-103 FIRSTNET PDF MADE WAYNE
33 

tions. We presented a pilot project build-out along the Southwest 

border that we thought could have some impact in our State, but 

also provide some valuable learning conditions to the board. Then 

that had quite a bit of resonance, so from that point on we began 

working with the FirstNet board, as well as with folks at NTIA and 

FCC to develop that into a pilot project, as well as begin negotiations with the FirstNet board for a lease in the spectrum so that 

we could begin to build that out. 

Over the course of about 6 months we iterated with them, we 

worked through that negotiation. Of course, you know, any negotiation has its ups and downs. New Mexico very much wanted to 

make sure that what we had in place would serve our citizens, and 

our constituents, but also give us flexibility, and, I am sure with 

FirstNet, give them the flexibility that they needed. I am proud to 

say we accomplished that. We have a non-exclusive State-wide 

lease in that spectrum, and are working towards developing the 

RFP to proceed with the Southwest border project. 

We have been granted that lease with three key learning conditions that, in conjunction with the FirstNet board, we developed for 

that build-out. And those key learning conditions are, one, demonstrating the ability of, you know, cross-jurisdictional interaction 

by working with the deployed corps in Harris County, Texas. The 

second being looking at the frequency issues, the spectrum issues, 

associated with operating on the U.S.-Mexico border, and what that 

is going to mean on a larger scale as the FirstNet build-out rolls 

out. And then, third, the opportunity to potentially incorporate 

Federal users onto that system as we deploy, given the presence of 

Customs and Border Patrol, Immigrations and Customs, and other 

Federal operations along that boundary. So, at that point, we are 

working on publishing the RFPs to start the first phase of this operation, and hope to begin that in the First Quarter of 2014. 

With that, my time is about up, and I would love to answer any 

questions that you have later. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackley follows:] 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, Mr. Ackley, thank you very much. We 

look forward to learning more about the experience that New Mexico has had. Sounds like it has been a good one. Mr. Davis, we are 

delighted to have you here. Mr. Stu Davis is a State Chief Information Office and Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. We are very appreciative that you were able 

to join us, and we look forward to your testimony too, sir. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF STU DAVIS 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify on FirstNet and the nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Network Initiative. My name is Stu Davis. I currently serve as the Ohio State Chief Information Officer, and the 

Assistant Director of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. As the State CIO, I lead, oversee, and direct State agency activities related to information technology development and its use. 

As Assistant Director of DAS, I oversee the Office of Information 

Technology, which delivers information technology and telecommunications services to State government agencies, boards, and 

commissions. I also serve as the Chair of the Multi-Agency Radio 

Communication Systems, MARCS, on that steering committee, 

which is Ohio’s land mobile radio system that supports voice and 

data communications of statewide public safety and emergency 

management. I also chair Ohio’s Emergency Service IP Network, 

ESINet, steering committee, focused on Ohio’s Next Gen 911 solution. 

The Ohio General Assembly had concerns about FirstNet, and 

passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 earlier this year. Specific 

concerns were around the business plan, the costs the State would 

bear, either mandated or obligated, the ability to opt-out with no 

cost if not appropriate for Ohio, to have written assurances that it 

would meet, exceed current levels of service in the areas of reliability, redundancy, and State-based system control, as well as fair 

market compensation for access and utilization of State-owned assets in support of network deployment. It called for this subcommittee to continue these meetings, and we commend you for 

doing so. Thank you. 

FirstNet outreach has significantly improved, and is more consistent than we have seen in the past, which is great. We still have 

questions regarding requirements, user community rules and responsibilities, the overarching business case, and defined businesses and operational models, and, of course, near and long-term 

funding. We need to have further insight into these components so 

we can properly plan for future initiatives. 

It is important that FirstNet views relationships with the States 

as a partnership, and that continues. Currently the planning 

grants available to States are focused on outreach and education. 

For FirstNet to be successful, they need to focus on the development of those relationships with the State, modifying their approach to be one of engagement, not product marketing to States. 

An example of partnering would be strong engagement on the requirements, and a definition of roles and responsibilities. It would 

44 

make sense to have individual State discussions, and perhaps negotiate these terms, before releasing an RFP to build out FirstNet. 

If this does not take place, there will be very little time for the 

States to react and determine the best path forward. If we are not 

part of those negotiations of those details of a blanket RFP prior 

to its release, it will be detrimental to both parties. 

There are numerous requirements that need to be defined before 

architecting a solution. This runs the gamut from user, to technical, to operational requirements. It is difficult to architect a solution to undefined user requirements, and without clear expectations. FirstNet needs to be extremely sensitive to the fact that moving full steam ahead on identifying the technical aspects of the system several months before regional outreach positions are in place 

can be a little risky. Choosing technical specifications in the absence of understanding the needs of the State could also be detrimental to the long-term viability of the network. 

We need to know these requirements and understand what the 

impact of these efforts will have on existing Ohio initiatives. In 

Ohio, this would be MARCS. It would also be the consideration of 

other statewide initiatives, such as Next Generation 911, which 

should be viewed as a component of FirstNet. Several States, including Ohio, have stated that current Next Gen design efforts 

must integrate with FirstNet in the future. Understanding the impact on MARCS, as well as Next Generation 911, is critical to our 

planning process. 

We would also like to see the business model. I understand the 

difficulties there, but it is critical for us to be able to understand 

the sustainability of the effort that we have going forward. Building the cost recovery and usage rates will be instrumental in the 

adoption of the effort. The answer I get is, build, and ongoing costs 

will be supported through partnerships with the State, and subscription from early adopters. I don’t believe this is sustainable. 

Someone has to pay for operations while adoption ramps up and 

takes place. 

The concern would be the responsibility for the operational costs, 

and, more to the point, adoption of MARCS, at $20 a month, gets 

significant pushback from some of our user community. Volunteer 

firefighters push back on $240 a year to have an operational radio 

on our system. How will they pay for both? I would like to better 

understand these aspects before we can move forward a little bit. 

Again, with the capital investment from Federal Government, 

where is the revenue to sustain the FirstNet operations in each 

State? The interpretation of public safety use only must be clearly 

defined. Without the revenue from broad secondary use of excess 

capacity, the model may not be sustainable. 

In Ohio we are working through IT optimization efforts to align 

all our IT assets, resources, and current expenditures to reduce duplication of effort and increase efficiencies of the benefit to the citizen. A key of this is adoption and leveraging of past investments. 

We are expending dollars today to support law enforcement and 

first responders. These past investments, I mentioned MARCS and 

Next Generation 911, there has to be a path forward to protect 

those current and previous investments so that these systems are 

integrated and leveraged. We need to be able to plan and forecast 

45 

impacts and direction of current efforts to be able to align with 

FirstNet. Understanding the operational costs and potential costs 

to the user community will be directly related to law enforcement 

and first responder adoption. 

I understand that FirstNet will also leverage, or attempt to leverage, existing vertical assets the State currently owns, lease, or 

is carrying debt on. There are financial, legal, jurisdictional issues 

regarding use of existing State, local, and private assets. There are 

numerous bonding and legal considerations that must be thought 

through for many States. 

We continue to have concerns about funding, and it is important 

to note that, after having said all these things, I am supportive of 

the concept of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, 

and I believe Ohio is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the 

significant opportunity to coordinate and converge multiple efforts. 

These efforts include MARCS, as well as the Ohio Next Generation 

System, and I look forward to the opportunity to partner on this 

effort and ensure impacts to current initiatives are in alignment 

with Ohio’s direction. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Davis, thank you for your testimony. I think 

you have summed it up well. We all want it to work, and be affordable, and that is what we are striving to get to. 

Mr. Dereck Orr is the Program Manager, Public Safety Communications Research, Office of Law Enforcement Standards, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. That is a long title. But we 

are glad you are here, and we look forward to your testimony, sir. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DERECK ORR 

Mr. ORR. Thank you very much. Chairman Walden, Ranking 

Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the advancement 

of public safety wireless communications. I serve as the Program 

Manager for the Public Safety Communications Research Program, 

which is a joint effort between the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration at the Department of Commerce Labs located in Boulder, Colorado. 

The Public Safety Communications Research Program serves as 

the technical lead for several administration initiatives focused on 

public safety communications. Our longest standing program sponsor is the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science and Technology Directorate. The PSCR program is also involved in many of DHS’s communications interoperability related programs, including the 

SAFECOM program within the Office of Emergency Communications. Additionally, PSCR is sponsored by the First Responder Network Authority to advance public safety broadband communication 

standards, and is developing additional research projects related to 

public safety broadband communications that the PSCR is uniquely 

qualified to execute. NIST greatly appreciates as well the confidence that Congress placed in NIST by allocating critical funding 

for public safety communications research and development in the 

legislation that established FirstNet. 

Working alongside our Federal partners, the PSCR program has 

played the lead technical role in key advancement in public safety 

communications over the last decade. In 2010 the PSCR program, 

in partnership with DHS, deployed in the Boulder area a first-ofits-kind fourth-generation, long-term evolution, 700 megahertz public safety broadband demonstration network. This network was developed in collaboration with industry through cooperative research 

and development agreements between NIST, NTIA, and over 75 individual industry partners to date. This public/private partnership 

has resulted in one of the most vendor diverse 4G LTE networks 

in the world. The demonstration network allows PSCR to test and 

evaluate key broadband features critical to public safety, including 

multi-vendor interoperability, indoor, in-building coverage, and extended cell coverage possibilities for rural areas. In addition, future 

work will focus on priority access and quality of service for the network. 

As part of PSCR’s modeling and simulation efforts, PSCR conducts performance analysis of advanced communications networks 

using commercially available and in-house customized modeling 

51 

simulation tools. In support of a nationwide public safety 

broadband network, PSCR develops metrics and tools used to characterize the performance of LTE networks, which will help inform 

decision-making about network design. 

PSCR continues to lead the requirements development efforts for 

the public safety broadband, working directly in support of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council. NPSTC’s 

broadband working group has developed requirements documents 

for mission critical voice, local control, and priority and quality of 

service that clearly define public safety’s expectations of the nationwide broadband network capabilities. 

In December 2012 NPSTC delivered the public safety broadband 

launch requirements to the FirstNet Board of Directors and the 

Public Safety Advisory Committee. The launch requirements define 

public safety’s expectations for the nationwide network at launch. 

More recently, NPSTC delivered push-to-talk over LTE requirements to FirstNet. Current requirements efforts focus on the definition of public safety grade as it applies to the nationwide 

broadband network. These requirements documents are used as the 

fundamental basis of PSCR’s formal standards development efforts 

related to LTE on behalf of FirstNet and the public safety community. Based upon testing and evaluation, modeling and simulation, 

and requirements gathering efforts, all of which inform the standards development effort at PSCR, there have been significant advances in the commercial LTE standards specific to public safety. 

In December 2012 public safety was identified as the number one 

priority for the current version of LTE standards being developed 

within the third generation partnership project, which is the official standards development organization for LTE. This is a major 

accomplishment, given public safety’s limited user base, compared 

to the worldwide commercial wireless user base. With this added 

momentum, and as part of the NPSTC mission critical voice requirements, PSCR is addressing the two largest gaps identified in 

LTE’s ability to support mission critical voice capabilities, which 

are direct mode, device-to-device communications, and group communications. PSCR also has recently launched an effort to standardize mission critical push-to-talk LTE within 3GPP. 

And, finally, working in the international standards community, 

alongside public safety from other countries, will lead to a global 

public safety LTE marketplace. This should decrease costs, while 

increasing the availability of advanced features to the worldwide 

public safety community. 

In conclusion, PSCR will continue its public safety driven approach to advancing communications technologies for our Nation’s 

first responders, and we look forward to continuing and expanding 

our valuable partnerships across public safety, local, State, tribal, 

and Federal Government organizations, as well as industry. Again, 

I am honored to be here before the subcommittee today, and I am 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orr follows:] 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Orr, thank you for your testimony, we appreciate that. 

And now, because we have a lot of doctors before our committee, 

we can’t have a hearing without at least a doctor on the panel, Dr. 

Dennis M. Martinez, Chief Technology Officer, RF Communications 

Division, Harris Corporation. Dr. Martinez, we are delighted to 

have you here, and we look forward to your expert testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS MARTINEZ 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify today on FirstNet, and the advancement of public 

safety wireless communications. I previously testified before this 

committee on May 21 of 2011, during the hearing on creating an 

interoperable public safety broadband network. Last year I served 

as an appointed member of the Technical Advisory Board for First 

Responder Interoperability. In that role, I joined leaders representing State and local governments, public safety entities, wireless service providers, and equipment manufacturers in developing 

the recommended minimum technical requirements to ensure nationwide interoperability for the National Public Safety Broadband 

Network. These requirements were conveyed by the FCC to 

FirstNet, and, as required by law, will be incorporated in future 

RFPs issued by FirstNet. 

I am here today to provide this committee with a technical perspective on FirstNet’s mission and activities, with the goal of informing the committee on areas of progress since passage of the 

landmark legislation last year. There are four activities that I will 

address, pilot projects, standards of development, regulatory policy, 

and response to FirstNet inquiries. 

Since January 2012, Harris has implemented pilot LTE projects 

in five jurisdictions. Most recently, Harris conducted live demonstrations of a deployable solution in remote Northern California 

that is not served by commercial broadband networks. These pilot 

projects utilized public safety broadband spectrum, and were implemented almost entirely at Harris expense, and we received support 

from the FCC and the FirstNet team, who facilitated and approved 

short-term spectrum use authorizations. 

We had several objectives for launching these projects. First, we 

aimed at creating a learning experience for public safety entities 

that wanted firsthand knowledge of the exciting prospects promised 

by the eventual broadband network. Additionally, we sought learning experiences that would advance our own understanding of how 

to apply this State of the art commercial technology in a mission 

critical setting. Our findings were simple, but profound. 

First, while there were many public safety entities that currently 

use commercial broadband networks in day-to-day operations, the 

prospect of a dedicated network optimized for their mission critical 

needs is highly valued. In fact, many of these entities are anxious 

to support deployment of the broadband network in their jurisdiction. Secondly, commercial LTE technology can be configured, 

through rigorous design practices, to support some mission critical 

needs today. The key gap that currently exists is mission critical 

voice. Notwithstanding that, we successfully demonstrated techVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:56 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-103 FIRSTNET ASK 2ND OK 10-23-14\113-103 FIRSTNET PDF MADE WAYNE
59 

nology that permits interoperability between legacy and mission 

critical radio systems, and services that operate over Band 14 LTE. 

And that brings me to the second topic area, which is the development of standards that will support mission critical voice on the 

broadband network and enable nationwide interoperability. Several 

activities are underway in 3GPP, TIA, and ATIS that are addressing this need. Under the Spectrum Act, FirstNet must represent 

the interest of public safety users in these standards development 

activities, and to do so in consultation with the director of NIST, 

the FCC, and the Public Safety Advisory Committee. Although not 

explicitly noted in the Spectrum Act, we also believe there is significant benefit for FirstNet to consult and collaborate in this process with private sector entities likely supplying the required products and services that implement these emerging standards. 

In addition to the development of standards, continuing evolution 

of the regulatory framework for FirstNet will be important to its 

success. As a manufacturer of LTE user equipment, Harris is 

pleased with the significant milestone that was achieved earlier, 

when the FCC released the first iteration of Band 14 service rules. 

These rules are a significant step, and one that is required for 

OEMs to continue their investment in products and technologies 

that FirstNet will need in its deployment, and first responders will 

need in order to operate on the NPSBN. Toward that goal, and in 

advance of these final requirements, we note that FirstNet has 

done significant work to require their early build-outs are interoperable, and should be commended for supporting efforts to make 

procurements for these projects competitive and multi-vendor. 

Finally, we commend the FirstNet team on their significant success and progress in their RFI process. That has given us, the private sector, a significant window of visibility into potential requirements for equipment and services that they will procure. As 

FirstNet completes its State and local collaboration and begins finalization of the technical requirements for the broadband network, we encourage FirstNet to engage the private sector at each 

opportunity. This is an essential step for continued investment by 

the private sector in FirstNet, which, in turn, is important for 

timely availability of products and services that FirstNet will need 

to procure. 

In closing, I once again thank the committee for inviting me to 

testify on this matter of great importance to the American public. 

Harris remains eager to support FirstNet, and this committee, to 

make this happen. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:] 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Dr. Martinez, we appreciate your testimony. We will go to questions now. 

Mr. Ginn, in my opening statement I expressed a concern we 

have heard from a number of potential partners and stakeholders, 

namely that FirstNet doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be. I 

don’t mean that as a personal criticism. It is a question I think I 

would like to get to Mr. Ackley and Mr. Davis. One State says, we 

are good to go, and it all worked well. The other State is saying, 

I am not so sure, and what this is going to mean in the long-term 

costs and implications. 

And so I guess my question would be, can you tell us what is 

FirstNet’s plan to realize this network? 

Mr. GINN. Well, that is going to take a few moments. First off, 

on the principle of working with other States, from our point of 

view, needs to be a joint effort. 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. GINN. It should be jointly negotiated. When we reach the 

point where we have completed the RFP and presented to the 

States, there will be no surprises in Ohio as to what is in the—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So let me stop you there for a second, because that 

was one of the issues Mr. Davis raised, is how that communication 

on the RFP will take place. Correct, Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. I think what we want to make sure 

of is that the collaboration piece stays in place, and that those technical documents that go out to—— 

Mr. GINN. And, by the way, I agree with that. As a—— 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Mr. GINN [continuing]. Matter of fact—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Good. 

Mr. GINN [continuing]. If you look at our work plan for 2014, we 

are establishing 10 regional offices that complement FEMA areas, 

and their sole responsibility is going to be working with States in 

coming up with radio access networks to feed into the national 

grid. So maybe one of the issues here is his expectation is beyond 

our ability to deliver. But when you think about, it takes 4 to 8 

months to hire a single employee in the Federal Government. You 

don’t get these things done that quickly. 

So my comment to Mr. Davis would be, work with us. We want 

to do this as partners. Hopefully, at the end of this, we will have 

agreed on a network plan for Ohio. And when it is presented, you 

will know all the details, even before it is presented—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So the other issue that I believe you raised, Mr. 

Davis, was the long-term financial stability of FirstNet, kind of 

what you are buying into, and what it is going to cost you longterm, right? And what about State assets? Do you think you are 

going to be asked to put all your assets in the pot and say goodbye 

to them, and then be part of FirstNet with an open ended cost, potentially, down the road? Is that the concern Ohio has? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think it has a variety of different components to it, 

and I think we just have to work through those things. And—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. It is sort of a step-by-step process. And 

every State is going to have similar issues, in terms of leveraging 

existing assets, even if it is—— 

68 

Mr. WALDEN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Lease space, and things that we have 

going on. And phase two of the planning grants that are out there 

will hopefully address some of those things. But the questions that 

we get when we go out and do the outreach components within 

Ohio all come back to, what is the cost? We recognize that we don’t 

know those things today—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. But the more that we can have a sustainable business model at least—to their process, the better off we 

are all going to be in the long run. 

Mr. GINN. To give you some idea of the complexity of this, 70 

percent of the cost of the network is going to be in cell site locations, OK? 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GINN. It is a high percentage. It matters in the total economics. If—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Of course. 

Mr. GINN [continuing]. We could get each State and the Federal 

Government to allow us to use those without fees, it would dramatically reduce the cost of this network, OK? Now, he would—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, that was one of our original ideas, I think, 

was to build from the State up, and not create a separate set of 

systems, but—— 

Mr. GINN. Well, I guess the way I would say that, maybe a little 

differently, we have to start out with a core that covers the entire 

United States, and then we have to make sure that—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. GINN [continuing]. State systems are comparable—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Interoperable. 

Mr. GINN [continuing]. With connecting into that core, around 

interoperability, and security, and reliability, and all the other 

issues that we will mandate. 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. So, Mr. Ackley, in the 11 seconds I have 

left, what gave you confidence in your State to go ahead and enter 

into this arrangement? 

Mr. ACKLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the fact that New Mexico had done some substantial work in this arena before the passage of the Spectrum Act, so this was something that we were already incorporating into our planning, and working towards. And 

I think that gave us a position to be able to work with the FirstNet 

board from some assumptions we had developed early on, with respect to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And you are comfortable with the long-term potential cost implications, and the ability to afford participation down 

the road? 

Mr. ACKLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a lot of good 

points that are raised—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. ACKLEY [continuing]. Here that need to be addressed. You 

know, comfort is something that is going to increase, I think, as 

these issues are addressed. You know, things such as asset—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. ACKLEY [continuing]. Cost allocation and recovery, the—— 

69 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. ACKLEY [continuing]. Usage, the business model, and those 

sorts of things. I think, from our position, it is something, if we can 

maintain the involvement as a State, and working with FirstNet 

on this—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. ACKLEY [continuing]. That we can continue to develop that 

comfort. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. My time has expired, and I am going to 

turn the gavel over to Mr. Latta, and I am going to recognize Ms. 

Eshoo for questions. I have to excuse myself to take a meeting. But 

I want to thank you all, and know that you know we are concerned. 

Want to make sure this all works for first responders, and for the 

country. We commend the work that has been done. I know it is 

a huge startup, and we just want to continue to do our appropriate 

oversight. 

I recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you to each one of you for traveling here, and 

for your excellent written testimony, as well as the spoken testimony, and for your patience. Inevitably, when we have, what I 

think, are some of the most important hearings, the bells go off, 

and you have to wait, so thank you for your patience. 

Mr. Ginn, thank you for your leadership. This is a heavy lift, and 

it is somewhat complicated. It is not as if we don’t have any systems in our country. We do. The problem is they are not interoperable. And these systems have been in place longer. Obviously, they 

have a history. What we are doing now is really rewriting history. 

And so there is a push and a pull in different places. I understand 

it. Change is not easy to make, and it is menacing to people that 

have done it a certain way for a long, long time. I don’t hold it 

against them, but I think the signal is, you know what? We are on 

the move. This has to change. It has to change because of what our 

country endured. 

So thank you for your leadership, and I think that your credentials from the private sector are superb. And I don’t want to say 

it is good to hear about your frustrations, but it also demonstrates 

that it is difficult to merge the public and the private. But I have 

confidence in you, I really do. 

Now, in September the FCC, Mr. Ginn, announced, you know, 

this landmark voluntary industry solution to achieve interoperability in the lower 700 megahertz band. What I would like to 

know is what steps is FirstNet taking to leverage this opportunity, 

if, in fact, you can, and do you think that the agreement is going 

to provide the first responders with more roaming opportunities, 

and greater redundancy? I am very excited about—— 

Mr. GINN. Yes. You are talking about the interoperable task force 

at the FCC that gave us the standards? 

Ms. ESHOO. No. This is the voluntary solution that was agreed 

upon with industry stakeholders. If you are not familiar with it, I 

can go on to—— 

Mr. GINN. Yes. No, maybe—— 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Another question. Yes. No, I can go on 

to another question. I have—— 

Mr. GINN. OK. 

70 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. 2 minutes and 23 seconds, and a trip 

out to Dulles. 

To Dr. Martinez, thank you for being here again. In your testimony you talked about the importance of developing standards for 

mission critical voice, and that is a very, very important area. Does 

the absence of such a standard prevent your company from supporting build-out projects? I am not so sure, from your testimony, 

if that is the case. And, you know, I mean, the examples would be 

Los Angeles, or the State of New Mexico. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Congresswoman Eshoo, no, it does not. The—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. [continuing]. Absence of a standard is not a prerequisite to proceed with a BTOP program. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. However, to the extent that such a program 

would have a requirement for mission critical voice, then we have 

to ensure that the implementation of that requirement in a BTOP 

program would not preclude future compatibility with whatever 

FirstNet chooses as a mission critical standard. 

Ms. ESHOO. So it complicates it, is that what you are saying? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I would say it is a factor that has to be considered, but—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. MARTINEZ [continuing]. It should certainly not be a 

showstopper for proceeding with a—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. 

Mr. MARTINEZ [continuing]. BTOP project. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And, by the way, not all BTOP projects would 

necessarily require a—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. MARTINEZ [continuing]. Mission critical voice component. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. Back to Mr. Ginn, you know that I have been 

involved in Next Generation 911, the 911 issues, going back to the 

’90s, obviously long before our country was attacked. Do you see 

the Next Gen 911 being integrated into what FirstNet is doing? 

Mr. GINN. I absolutely do. As I understand, Next Gen 911, you 

are not only going to be able to take voice, but you are going to 

be able to take data—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. GINN [continuing]. Photographs, and other capabilities. Well, 

guess what, LTE is data-centric. It has a great capability to transmit data. And so, the way I see it, very simply, is information coming into the 911 centers can very easily be sent right to a law enforcement officer at a point in the district in seconds. 

Ms. ESHOO. That is—— 

Mr. GINN. So—— 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Wonderful. So it will be—— 

Mr. GINN. Yes. I just see us as a real enabler to adding benefits 

to Next Generation. 

Ms. ESHOO. Bravo. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. The gentlelady from California yields 

back, and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

71 

And, again, thanks very much for you all being here today. Really appreciate your testimony, and it is very informative because, 

when we had the hearing earlier this year to find out where we 

have gone and come from that timeframe. 

And, Mr. Davis, if I could ask you a few questions, especially 

coming from the Ohio perspective? Some of the things that were 

brought up, especially by the folks that were here earlier this year 

from Maryland and Virginia, and their concerns, just to get your 

perspective as to where you think things are, and where they were 

earlier this year. And in your testimony, when you talk about the 

partnership versus the customer, and particularly on the 

partnering, you said it would be stronger engagement on the requirements and the determination of roles and responsibilities. Do 

you see that things have tightened up, that there is more back and 

forth between FirstNet and the States, and that you have a contact 

out there that you can get to all the time? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, we do. We have made significant progress. 

FirstNet, in the outreach component, has done an excellent job. 

Their message is consistent, and there is a point of contact for us. 

As a matter of fact, I believe we have a meeting on Friday of this 

week. So the communication piece is moving forward very well, 

that component of it. 

And the point that we just need to make sure we understand is 

that we are making decision at the State level on a variety of different initiatives that we have going on, Next Generation 911 being 

one, and the architecting of that. If there are things that we can 

do that will better position our initiative in Ohio to support 

FirstNet, and vice-versa, those are the types of activities that we 

want to talk through. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I think also you mentioned in your testimony 

the planning and development, especially in the State of Ohio. And 

the 11 years that I served in the General Assembly, working on the 

MARCS system at that time, there was a lot of discussion about 

the cost, et cetera, and also the LMR. Is that being considered and 

taken in to account, especially for the amount of money that Ohio 

has invested over all those years, especially, like, in MARCS? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think absolutely it is. I think that it is the mission 

critical piece that we have. There are 1,300 different disparate systems that we are trying to push forward to move into MARCS as 

a shared service model. Very similar, I would imagine, to some of 

the things that we are hearing from FirstNet. And we would like 

to engage and partner in that, because we have partnering tiers 

that we set up that would be, I think, valuable for FirstNet to understand how we are operating today. 

Mr. LATTA. And pardon me for interrupting, but you said you 

would like to. Are you being taken into those discussions? Because 

you said like to. Is that that you are or aren’t getting that information in those discussions? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think those things are starting now. They started 

about 3 months ago. We didn’t get the grant for the planning side 

through our controlling board process until September. So things in 

the last month have moved quickly. In the last 6 weeks, things 

have been significantly better, and that communication is ramping 

up. 

72 

Mr. LATTA. Well, not just wanting to pick on you here, especially 

in your testimony, you are talking about especially the volunteer 

firefighters. And the pushback, as you say in your testimony, on 

the $240 a year to have an operational radio on our system in 

Ohio. And I tell you, I know, with my 14 counties, and the backbone out there is that volunteer fire department. 

And, you know, I go to a lot of chicken barbecues, and pancake 

days, and fish fries, and for all of the things that those folks are 

doing out there to protect their friends and neighbors, you know, 

they just can’t take a lot of mandates out there. So, you know, 

where are the dollars going to be coming from for those folks out 

there across the State of Ohio, and across the Nation, for these volunteers to pay for this? 

Mr. DAVIS. What a great question. It is something we wrestle 

with all the time with the MARCS system today, as you well know. 

We are looking at everything that we can possibly do to try to 

lower those costs as much as possible. A lot of that is economy of 

scale, and the more municipalities, the more counties that come on 

board to the radio system will drive those costs down, and make 

that at least a little bit more affordable. 

I know that we are looking at different ways to try to figure out 

how to crack that volunteer component, because $240 a year 

doesn’t sound like much, but when you have 10 volunteers, that is 

a lot of money. And at some point in time, those events happen, 

we need to engage with those people, and it is critical to the response in that area. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Just real briefly in my last 20 seconds, on that 

economy of scale, when you are looking at the economy of scale, are 

you talking about, like, for the volunteers across the State, or are 

you looking at particular areas in the State of Ohio? 

Mr. DAVIS. We are looking at the volunteers across the State of 

Ohio, but we are also looking at the 1,300 different disparate systems out there as they fold in. And we have got quite a bit of success here in probably the last 8 months in getting counties, and 

their radio systems, into our system and leveraging their assets, 

and some of the assets that we have, to benefit both the county, 

as well as the statewide effort that we have going on. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. My time has expired, and I recognize the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. I, along with Anna, have been working in the first responder 

issues for a long time, and 911, so we are pleased we are here. 

Some of us would have liked to have gotten here a different way, 

but this is the rules of the road now. And so, Mr. Davis, compelling 

testimony, because your folks are my constituents. I represent 1/3 

of the State. 

And so, Mr. Ginn, I hope you really take heed to some of these 

concerns in Mr. Davis’s opening, and his testimony. I keep highlighting, and he makes some compelling arguments. And, you 

know, we work for those volunteer fire departments, or those small 

communities, and we have to get this right. You have great success 

in the private sector, and I always wonder when the private sector 

experts come to government, and how they get chewed up in the 

bureaucracy. I mean, you gave a great example of the 4 months in 

73 

hiring an employee. I mean, that is government, and that makes 

it challenging. 

But your opening statement was right on. You have got to get 

it built, and you have got to get it built right, and I applaud that 

focus. I would also add you have got to get it built within budget. 

And this business model debate that is raised by Mr. Davis, not 

just at your end, but also down at their end, because I know, in 

this debate, one of the underlying things was, don’t worry, the government will bring you more money if you don’t get it right, and 

I don’t think you can assume that. 

Mr. GINN. Can I respond? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Please. 

Mr. GINN. Yes. You know, I take the $7 billion as a personal and 

organizational challenge. And, if you have a moment, let me tell 

you how I think about it, because—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to get to LTE too, so, yes, I do have a moment, but don’t—— 

Mr. GINN. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. Take my 3 minutes. 

Mr. GINN. OK. You know, the first thing you need to understand, 

what is the cost of the network? And you are going to spend a lot 

of time trying to drive down the cost of that network, as I was suggesting about free cell sites in States and Federal buildings. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

Mr. GINN. Because that would dramatically decrease the cost of 

providing the network. You have got a couple other costs. You have 

got to stand up an organization. We are doing that now. We are 

putting people in 10 regional offices to work with Ohio and other 

places. And then we will reach a point—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let us just go here and say you are going to do 

your utmost to have an efficient system that is going to be cost-effective, and you are going to try to deploy what has been requested—— 

Mr. GINN. Yes. And the point I want to make to you is simply 

this, that if we get to the bottom line, and we are not there, we 

are going to reiterate the whole process and look to take out other 

costs. So—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. I just raise that because there is a concern, 

not just at your level, at the local level, and we have got to get the 

costs right too, otherwise we are not going to be where we want 

to be. 

You did talk about LTE, and the great technology, and the data 

stuff, but mission critical voice is also an important aspect of this 

debate. Can you explain FirstNet, this is also for Mr. Orr, on, obviously, the voice aspect of this, that is part of the application with 

NIST, and where are at with that? 

Mr. ORR. So, just to be clear, NPSTC defined mission critical 

voice, and that is a group of public safety associations, as the ability to talk directly from one device to another, so direct mode, 

push-to-talk, like public safety uses now with their radios, full duplex voices, which is how we talk on our cell phones right now, 

where you can talk over each other, group call, so that you talk one 

to many, talker identification, like caller ID, emergency alerting, so 

I hit a button, and I get automatic access to the network if I am 

74 

in an emergency situation, and audio quality, so that you can actually hear me in difficult environments, like firefighters and police 

often work in. 

The most challenging aspects for mission critical voice right now 

are really the top three, which are dealing with push-to-talk capability, group communications, and direct mode device-to-device, because those aren’t issues that are being dealt with by the commercial community right now. So that is what we are working in LTE, 

and that is where we have had, actually, very significant progress 

on the LTE standards. And we are working closely with the other 

countries around the world that are also deploying their own public 

safety LTE networks, because every single one of them needs this 

mission critical voice capability. 

So our expectation, at least from a PSCR perspective, is within 

the next 18 to 24 months, we would like to start seeing prototypes 

in our laboratories that display this capability, that we can at least 

start assessing, testing, and, as Chairman Ginn said, reiterating on 

the standards to ensure that these products someday actually meet 

the capabilities of the current land mobile radio systems. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great, and I will just end on this. The Seattle 

Times, of all papers, wrote an article about the tornadoes that went 

through my district, and a lot of the Midwest, Ohio and Indiana, 

and how people’s lives were saved through the communication to 

their cell phones and the like. Obviously, the people didn’t have access to that, may not have got as clear a warning as they could 

have, but we are getting there. But there is concerns about the top 

down, the business model, and I would hope you work with our 

local providers, because they are the key to this, making it work. 

Mr. GINN. If you take nothing else away from here, you need to 

understand that I understand that if you don’t satisfy your customers, you don’t have a business. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Amen. Yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 

back the balance of his time. And, for Chairman Walden, and also 

for Ranking Member Eshoo, we want to thank you again for your 

testimony today, and your patience when we had to go to vote. We 

greatly appreciate that. 

And, if there is nothing further come before the committee, the 

subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

Æ